User talk:GeorgeBailey

Your recent editing history at Lee Zeldin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BlueboyLINY (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueboyLINY, Please check your talk page. Please, please, pretty please. This is the type of stuff I want to avoid. Let's talk on a talk page instead of sending these heavily linked copy and paste kind of things. I want to know what I can do to IMPROVE or TWEAK or EDIT a contribuion I make, INSTEAD OF IMMEDIATELY REVERTING. I want to hear what you have to say so I can improve my editing quality! GeorgeBailey (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Gianaris, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check your talk page, BlueboyLINY GeorgeBailey (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. These are NOT "copy & paste" they are valid warnings to stop your disruptive editing. Replacing democratic politicians photos with masked photos is disruptive. Additionally using photos from a flikr account is not acceptable per WP:UGC. Your summaries are also misleading as you're doing more than changing photos, you're adding WP:WHITESPACE to the infoboxes without explanation. You also have not responded to @Snooganssnoogans: " If you have an affiliation with Lee Zeldin and/or New York Federation of College Republicans, you need to declare it per WP:COI. BlueboyLINY (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueboyLINY:Okay, that actually makes sense! I can see why you would see masked photos as a bad thing, even though masks have become pretty normal in the senate chamber. I will try and find newer photos without masks, or put the newer photos in the body of the article, just to get a newer photo somewhere in there (I think that's a good compromise). Would you be willing to make an exception for masked photos for articles where the subject has a photo that is more than 5 or 10 years old (for example, Joseph Addabbo Jr., who's current photo is almost 15 years old)? I also noticed that you didn't mark any edits as disruptive or vandalism when I put masked photos of state senate Republicans in the past (Anthony Palumbo, Mario Mattera, Alexis Weik, etc.) Should I change those as well? Should I leave them if there aren't maskless photos available? I also did not choose to respond to Snoo's COI inquiry as I don't have any affiliations like that that would affect my editing. Also, when I put a new photo in an infobox, the whitespace is added automatically, that's not me (I only click the image box). Looking forward to continuing this conversation! :) GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes leave them if there is no unmasked photo available. Also, I've never heard of images not being allowed because of WP:UGC. Also, you should try the source editor with the Wikitext editor beta selected. That will allow you to not add white space. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because an image is old, doesn't mean it needs to be replaced. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GeorgeBailey: I have added citation needed tags to the Lee Zeldin page, and wanted to direct you to a couple of helpful pages you should bookmark: One, Two, good luck BlueboyLINY (talk) 09:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeorgeBailey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, When a user won't talk to you, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, mayoral election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Apocheir (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SUNYAC Men's Soccer Tournament".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Joe Pinion has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article does not appear to meet notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Muhibm0307 (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Angel Joy Chavis Rocker, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Angel Joy Chavis Rocker, a guidance counselor with no political experience, was the first black woman to run for President of the United States as a Republican? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Joy Chavis Rocker. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Angel Joy Chavis Rocker), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:SUNYAC Women's Soccer Tournament, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What prompted such contrition? --Theturbolemming (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If you mean why I removed a bunch of things, it was just so that my apology was front and center, and because I didn't feel the need to advertise things about myself when the focus should be on articles. I also removed the list of articles I wrote because somebody went through them individually in a couple of hours and flagged them for different things and managed to get a couple of them deleted, so that was kind of depressing. Sorry if you're asking something else and I don't understand your question GeorgeBailey (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, that pretty much it, I was just curious... is there anything in particular you felt the need to apologize for? Theturbolemming (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeorgeBailey! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Lee Zeldin that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "SUNYAC Women's Soccer Tournament".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey, and welcome to Wikipedia. I edit here too, under the username Dr vulpes, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Scott Presler, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Presler (2nd nomination).

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dr vulpes}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 22:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, stop removing well sourced information just because it's controversial or you don't like it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at La'Ron Singletary. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary to articles, as you did at Lee Zeldin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to discuss the article, please use Talk:Lee Zeldin. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey

Thank you for creating Republicans for National Renewal.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lee Zeldin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The statement "Zeldin was once New York's youngest attorney" needs verification, the rest is just redundant. BlueboyLINY (talk) 03:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lee Zeldin, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources actually prove Zeldin's claim. They all seem to be profile pieces which are not acceptable reliable sources. The Times-Union article doesn't even mention Zeldin being an attorney. The rest of the post is redundant, and should not be in lead. See WP:RSPSS if you need help finding reliable sources. BlueboyLINY (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Lee Zeldin, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BlueboyLINY (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgeBailey, please don't delete discussions from talk pages (or the Teahouse) which other people have replied to. They can be closed and archived, instead, if necessary. See here. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Lee Zeldin. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeorgeBailey! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Lee Zeldin that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. BlueboyLINY (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, GeorgeBailey. I've been watching the 2022 Minnesota State Auditor election page and I saw you added Tim Davis, the LMN candidate to the infobox, citing the result in the previous election as evidence enough to do so. I am aware this is standard practice for the election in which the candidate received over 5%, but I am not aware of that being the standard for follow-up elections. Can you point me to that standard, or is it your personal interpretation? SpeedMcCool (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, @SpeedMcCool:! Here's the discussion from WikiProject for Elections and Referendums (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/Archive_12#RfC_on_5%_threshold) that ruled that a candidate is included in the infobox when they get 5 percent of the vote, and as far as I am concerned, those "qualified" parties stick in place for the infobox until they don't. I can't point to a specific rule, but it's been my experience that previous election party results transfer over to the next, and that the only time that rule is broken is if a party nominee is polling at 5% or above. For minor party candidates, I do believe that it's better for an inclusive infobox to exist before the election and not after IF the party has done well previously OR receives a high share in polls. If there isn't a set rule, what do you think? I'd love to hear your interpretation. GeorgeBailey (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick response. I don't think the RfC 5% threshold is meant to cover future or ongoing elections and seems to have been written about passed elections.

My reaction to it is to think about a few things: 1) whether the candidate is actively campaigning by engaging in debates, releasing statements, etc., 2) whether the candidate is covered in independent and reliable sources, 3) whether that candidate is at or above 5% in public polling (this was discussed in a comment on the RfC you attached,) and 4) whether the candidate is independently notable.

On each point, I don't think Tim Davis makes the cut: 1) Davis has not attended debates he was invited to, and is not running a campaign to my knowledge. Social media accounts linked on Davis's [1]website are either dead or just LMN Party accounts. To be fair on this point, Davis's website is developed, but I know for a fact that site's requests for volunteers are not monitored. 2) A search for Tim Davis on Google finds him only mentioned in passing in a few stories. Pretty hard to say he's notable in that regard. 3) Davis has polled near 5% (as high as 4.8%) but has lately been in the 3% range. 4) Davis is minorly independently notable, but entirely for his activism outside of elections. In elections, he's no more than a perennial candidate.

I can see the case for including him in the infobox, but I think we as editors should be very careful about elevating a candidate who is not notable for his run in this election to equal billing with candidates who are running active campaigns and are getting independent news coverage. SpeedMcCool (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good question to bring up on the talk page. I figured he was a notable enough candidate because he had an article written about him. I'm in favor of inclusive infoboxes, but go for what you think is best. GeorgeBailey (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll remove. I think in the context of this election, Davis is not notable and we as editors should avoid augmenting his profile and potentially influencing the election by giving him major candidate billing. Thanks for your thoughts. SpeedMcCool (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Hydyr Nunnaýew, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed you added a link to a "Big Penguin Polling" poll for the NY gubernatorial election. I just wanted to let you know the "pollsters" in question are quite literally nothing more than a bait account on Twitter and not a real pollster - hell, the "poll" is just a bunch of numbers on a Google Drive spreadsheet - so I've removed it. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 13:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ser!: Where is it indicated that they are a satirical account (if that's what you mean by bait)? I had only seen BPP analyzed in the New York Times as a legitimate group (https://web.archive.org/web/20220804080344/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/03/us/politics/eric-greitens-schmitt-missouri.html). If there's some sort of citation that indicates that the group is a bunch of fakers, thank you for removing it, and I would appreciate seeing the source of what you're talking about. GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not satire, moreso just pretending to be pollsters for, for want of a better word, shits and giggles. The account hasn't received much coverage (because not many people care that much, I suppose) but this article pretty much debunks it. Hell, if you check their Twitter account, a lot of it is just pro-Republican content and arguing with random accounts, which isn't exactly what you'd expect from a legitimate pollster. Their website in the Twitter link is also just a Weebly site (free for anyone to create) riddled with spelling errors and inconsistencies. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thank you! I was only sent the crosstabs, I didn't realize what was going on with the account. I appreciate it! GeorgeBailey (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueboyLINY, before you copy your message onto here, I invite you to make a constructive edit to the page in question rather than edit warring. Please see the talk page of the article and discuss if you disagree with my edit. GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Republicans for National Renewal Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2019 Republican National Committee chairmanship election, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2021 Republican National Committee chairmanship election, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GeorgeBailey, I saw that you "thanked" me for an edit I made on the George Santos page. That edit generated some controversy and provoked an angry reaction from several editors on the page. If you feel like my edit was worthwhile, or that it improved the article, it would be great to talk about it and possibly work together to improve the page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "American" to "Soviet-American" in the page of Michael Novakhov. This contradicts MOS:NATIONALITY, which states that we "do not add ethnicity ("Russian-American") or country of birth ("Russian-born American")" for a person who emigrated when they were young and "continued to identify as a citizen of their adopted country". This clearly applies to people like Novakhov. On top of that, the Soviet Union hasn't existed since 1991 so he can't be a citizen or national of it. It should just be "American politician". Midwood123 (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that policy, thank you!

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bill Wyatt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. reppop^talk 16:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2028 Republican National Convention is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2028 Republican National Convention until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

SecretName101 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2019 Republican National Committee chairmanship election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2021 Republican National Committee chairmanship election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2021 Republican National Committee chairmanship election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GeorgeBailey. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "2019 Republican National Committee chairmanship election".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Kellen Curry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All sourcing is about his campaign. Not enough non-campaign coverage to show he meets general notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kellen Curry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kellen Curry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, per Wikipedia:BLPIMAGE images should not display the subject in a disparaging way, and that image was objectively low quality and could be assumed as such. if it was the best we had, then no image should be provided. BRES2773 (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:New York Post Cover.webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]